Det nye prestisjeflyet F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) har ikke hatt noen lett start. Kampflyprogrammet har måttet tåle det ene problemet og forsinkelsen etter den andre.
Nå kommer det svært dårlige nyheter om kampflyet i et notat skrevet av en av testpilotene i det amerikanske forsvaret. Det er nettsiden medium.com - War Is Boring som har fått tilgang til notatet, skriver ing.dk.
Konklusjonen skal være at det nye kampflyet er «dead meat» i luftkamp.
Notatet omhandler en testflyvning 14. januar i år hvor formålet var å teste F-35-flyets evner i nærkamp mot F-16, som det er meningen at det skal erstatte.
Dårligere enn fly fra 80-tallet
Testen gikk ifølge avisen ikke som håpet. Ifølge testpiloten kan det nye jagerflyet hverken svinge eller klatre raskt nok til å slå et fiendtlig fly i nærkamp.
- Til tross for F-16's beskjedne konfigurasjonsmuligheter gjorde F-35 det dårligere ved alle interaksjoner, skriver piloten.
Testpiloten som også har fløyet det gamle F-15 E fra slutten av 80-tallet beskriver F-35 som et betraktelig dårligere fly i nærkamper.
Milliarder dyrere
Norge skal kjøpe inntil 52 F-35-fly til en verdi av 68 milliarder 2013-kroner. Prisen er beregnet ut fra en dollarkurs på 6,47 kroner. Men dersom dollaren stabiliserer seg på dagens nivå, må Norge ut med hele 82 milliarder kroner.
Prisøkningen på 14 milliarder kroner er 20 prosent over det Stortinget har sagt ja til å bruke på de høyteknologiske kampflyene.
Men med vedlikehold og all annen understøttelse ble totalkostnaden for det norske F-35-programmet frem til 2054 i 2014 anslått til 248 milliarder kroner.
Det første flyet skal komme til Norge i 2017, ifølge Regjeringen.no.
F-35 Loses Dogfight to Fighter Jet From the 1980s
A new report alleges that an F-35A was defeated by the very aircraft it is meant to replace.
The United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are planning to acquire a total of 2,457 F-35 fighter jets with operation and maintenance costs estimated as high as $1,016 billion over the next four decades, according to the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
The 5th generation stealthy multirole aircraft is primarily designed for ground attack, aerial reconnaissance, and air defense missions rather than air combat. Yet, the plane obviously should still have the capacity to successfully defend itself against enemy air superiority fighters (In fact, some countries interested in procuring the F-35 want to deploy it first and foremost in an air-superiority role).
However, according to a report obtained by War is Boring, defending itself against legacy 4th generation air-superiority fighters is perhaps too tall of an order for the F-35. A five-page report by a test pilot of an aerial combat exercise over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California in January 2015 notes that the F-35 could not beat the F-16 in a close-range dogfight (aka "visual range air-to-air engagement tests").
"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the pilot emphasized in the report noting that the only way to successfully engage the F-16 was by executing a specific maneuver:
Once established at high AoA, a prolonged full rudder input generated a fast enough yaw rate to create excessive heading crossing angles with opportunities to point for missile shots.
Yet, the disadvantage of this rudder reversal maneuver is that it usually only works once:
The technique required a commitment to lose energy and was a temporary opportunity prior to needing to regain energy ... and ultimately end up defensive again.
As one analyst over at Foxtrot Alpha succinctly summarizes: "In dogfighting, energy is everything, and if your enemy has more kinetic and potential energy for maneuvers than you do, then you're toast."
Attempting to attack the F-16 with the F-35's 25mm cannon also failed. The pilot notes: "Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution." Nevertheless, when the F-16 took over the role of the attacker the F-35 failed to evade the older fighter jet due to a "lack of nose rate."
Additionally, it turned out that the pilot's helmet was just too big to be of any use in a dogfight. According to the report: "The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft."
The specific planes used in the exercises were an older F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with the designation AF-02 and a two-seat F-16D Block 40. While the F-35 did not carry any weapons in its bomb bay, the F-16 carried two fuel tanks under its wings (see: "Oops, US Close-Air Support Bomb Doesn't Fit on the F-35").
Tyler Rogoway over at FoxTrot Alpha elaborates that "the aircraft flown in the test, an F-35A, is the most maneuverable F-35 variant of the lot, being capable of pulling 9g, while the carrier capable F-35C is capable of pulling 7.5g and the short takeoff and vertical landing variant, the F-35B, is only capable of pulling 7g."
Aviation Week reported on the same or similar air-to-air combat maneuvers involving a F-16D Block 40 and an F-35 with an AF-02 designation. The article quotes the F-35 program director Col. Rod Cregier, who explained the simulated dogfights in more neutral terms noting that the simulation was primarily designed to see "how it [F-35]would look like against an F-16 in the airspace. It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it-that's the option."
F-35 Loses Dogfight to Fighter Jet From the 1980s
A new report alleges that an F-35A was defeated by the very aircraft it is meant to replace.
The United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are planning to acquire a total of 2,457 F-35 fighter jets with operation and maintenance costs estimated as high as $1,016 billion over the next four decades, according to the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
The 5th generation stealthy multirole aircraft is primarily designed for ground attack, aerial reconnaissance, and air defense missions rather than air combat. Yet, the plane obviously should still have the capacity to successfully defend itself against enemy air superiority fighters (In fact, some countries interested in procuring the F-35 want to deploy it first and foremost in an air-superiority role).
However, according to a report obtained by War is Boring, defending itself against legacy 4th generation air-superiority fighters is perhaps too tall of an order for the F-35. A five-page report by a test pilot of an aerial combat exercise over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California in January 2015 notes that the F-35 could not beat the F-16 in a close-range dogfight (aka "visual range air-to-air engagement tests").
"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the pilot emphasized in the report noting that the only way to successfully engage the F-16 was by executing a specific maneuver:
Once established at high AoA, a prolonged full rudder input generated a fast enough yaw rate to create excessive heading crossing angles with opportunities to point for missile shots.
Yet, the disadvantage of this rudder reversal maneuver is that it usually only works once:
The technique required a commitment to lose energy and was a temporary opportunity prior to needing to regain energy ... and ultimately end up defensive again.
As one analyst over at Foxtrot Alpha succinctly summarizes: "In dogfighting, energy is everything, and if your enemy has more kinetic and potential energy for maneuvers than you do, then you're toast."
Attempting to attack the F-16 with the F-35's 25mm cannon also failed. The pilot notes: "Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution." Nevertheless, when the F-16 took over the role of the attacker the F-35 failed to evade the older fighter jet due to a "lack of nose rate."
Additionally, it turned out that the pilot's helmet was just too big to be of any use in a dogfight. According to the report: "The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft."
The specific planes used in the exercises were an older F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with the designation AF-02 and a two-seat F-16D Block 40. While the F-35 did not carry any weapons in its bomb bay, the F-16 carried two fuel tanks under its wings (see: "Oops, US Close-Air Support Bomb Doesn't Fit on the F-35").
Tyler Rogoway over at FoxTrot Alpha elaborates that "the aircraft flown in the test, an F-35A, is the most maneuverable F-35 variant of the lot, being capable of pulling 9g, while the carrier capable F-35C is capable of pulling 7.5g and the short takeoff and vertical landing variant, the F-35B, is only capable of pulling 7g."
Aviation Week reported on the same or similar air-to-air combat maneuvers involving a F-16D Block 40 and an F-35 with an AF-02 designation. The article quotes the F-35 program director Col. Rod Cregier, who explained the simulated dogfights in more neutral terms noting that the simulation was primarily designed to see "how it [F-35]would look like against an F-16 in the airspace. It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it-that's the option."
F-35B demonstrates short take-off capability
The UK and USA have carried out the first short take-off test of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II during a ground-based test at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland, USA on 19 June.
This marks the start of the first phase of testing to certify the UK’s short take-off and vertical landingF-35B as capable of take off and landing from an aircraft carrier. The work is being controlled by theF-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force (ITF), assigned to the Air Test and Evaluation Sqn 23.
Test aircraft BF-04 took off on a ski-jump, demonstrating the F-35B’s ability to integrate into the UK’s future operations. The UK has selected the ski-jump approach as opposed to the catapult and arresting gear approach favoured by the USA in its carrier operations.
The UK’s new carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – are shorter and contain an upward slope ramp at the bow, curved to allow for the F-35B to launch upward and forward at the same time. This allows the aircraft to take off with more weight and at a lower speed than a horizontal launch permits, the UK Ministry of Defence says.
Lockheed Martin
"Friday’s F-35B ski-jump was a great success for the joint ski-jump team,” says Peter Wilson, BAE Systems test pilot and ski-jump project lead.
“As expected, aircraft BF-04 performed well and I can’t wait until we’re conducting F35 ski-jumps from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth carrier. Until then, the de-risking that we’re able to achieve now during phase I of our ski jump testing will equip us with valuable data we’ll use to fuel our phase II efforts.”
This follows a test on 12 June during which Royal Air Force test pilot Sqn Ldr Andy Edgell released two inert Raytheon Paveway IV precision-guided bombs from F-35B test aircraft BF-03.
The 500lb dual mode weapons were dropped over the Atlantic Test Ranges at Pax River, marking the first weapons separation test of the Paveway by the ITF. The passive bombs safely separated from an internal weapons bay within the F-35B, Lockheed Martin says, and maintained the stealth characteristics of the aircraft throughout.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.